H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Andrei Chesnokov vs Jim Grabb H2H: 1-0
Andrei Chesnokov holds a 1–0 lead over Jim Grabb in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Andrei Chesnokov leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Andrei Chesnokov won the 1990 New Haven fourth round 7-6 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 60
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 1990* | New Haven | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Andrei Chesnokov | 7-6 6-3 | Jim Grabb | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrei Chesnokov | #709 | #9 | 1,399 | 1,972 | 316 | 235 | 57.4% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 |
| Jim Grabb | #927 | #24 | 760 | 1,828 | 179 | 199 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Andrei Chesnokov | Jim Grabb | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1985 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1986 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1987 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #52 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1988 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1989 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #22 | 1,863 | 0 | 4 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1990 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #12 | 1,861 | 0 | 6 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1991 | 28–21 | 57.1% | #31 | 1,781 | 0 | 7 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1992 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #30 | 1,726 | 0 | 7 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1993 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #27 | 1,749 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1994 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1995 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #89 | 1,628 | 0 | 7 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1996 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #85 | 1,585 | 0 | 7 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 1997 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #209 | 1,571 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #207 | 1,544 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #494 | 1,565 | 0 | 7 | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #872 | 1,551 | 0 | 7 | 1997 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #342 | 1,516 | 0 | 2 |